I like the fan art armor for Samara, all but that tail.
However, It makes me think that BW should just do what they did in ME3, which is give us multiple companion armors to choose from. Therefore, those who wanna sex it up can and those who want "realism" can, and everyone is happy.
This is somewhat realistic photo of a woman in the military(if you ignore the fact that one of the hottest Hollywood actresses Demi Moore played a soldier). I'm all for women in ME Andromeda to be portrayed like that but will female gamers like it?
This is somewhat realistic photo of a woman in the military(if you ignore the fact that one of the hottest Hollywood actresses Demi Moore played a soldier). I'm all for women in ME Andromeda to be portrayed like that but will female gamers like it?
Just out of curiosity, what is it about her that you found realistic?
This is somewhat realistic photo of a woman in the military(if you ignore the fact that one of the hottest Hollywood actresses Demi Moore played a soldier). I'm all for women in ME Andromeda to be portrayed like that but will female gamers like it?
Would be fine to me, but usually female soldiers don't have shaved heads. I believe buns and ponytails are more popular hairstyles ^^
Would be fine to me, but usually female soldiers don't have shaved heads. I believe buns and ponytails are more popular hairstyles ^^
Recruits get their heads shaved after their arrival in the military,.
Recruits get their heads shaved after their arrival in the military,.
Women usually do not, since it's not required.
I like the fan art armor for Samara, all but that tail.
However, It makes me think that BW should just do what they did in ME3, which is give us multiple companion armors to choose from. Therefore, those who wanna sex it up can and those who want "realism" can, and everyone is happy.
You don't really get how this works yet do you? 
People don't even want others to get a choice, if it's something they don't like then it shouldn't be in the game at all!
Recruits get their heads shaved after their arrival in the military,.
Only male recruits get their heads shaved actually.
The whole head shaving thing is just about stripping people of any sense of individuality and the first step into indoctrinating them into more of a collectivist mindset. In fact that is the primary function of basic training in general.
With female recruits it isn't done because there is a lot more historical baggage with head shaving, and it was typically used to humiliate women. Instead they just have to keep their hair uniform, relatively short, and tied up in a bun when in uniform.
I wouldn't mind a female military character who goes the Jack / G.I. Jane route in ME:A, but the posted image wasn't really a realistic portrayal.
You don't really get how this works yet do you?
People don't even want others to get a choice, if it's something they don't like then it shouldn't be in the game at all!
While there probably are some people who genuinely object to things they don't like appearing as options in games, when it comes to things like this, I'd be against, say, 1 "sexualised" and 1 "non-sexualised" outfit because I'd prefer the resources to be put into make 2 "non-sexualised" outfits. If resources were unlimited, I'd be fine with having some of both, but they're not, so, being a selfish bastard, I want BW to put those resources into things I like.... 
Guest_Puddi III_*
Right, and the other problem with it being "just an option" is that for aesthetic cohesiveness, NPCs will likely have similar attire, so you can't just avoid wearing it if you're not a fan of that aesthetic for it not to be shoved in your face anyway. That, or they say to hell with aesthetic cohesiveness, which isn't necessarily good either.
Not saying what aesthetic I prefer, just saying that I don't find this idea of "just add more options and you can please everybody" to be particularly cogent.
I certainly agree with this (hell, I've mentionned before in this thread that it was the inconsistency of outfits like Miranda's and Jack's with the previously established rules of the setting that bothered me more than any sexualisation), but, as long as the default is consistent acrosss the board, I'm not that bothered if players have the option to switch themselves and some of the NPCs to things that don't match this style. (Though I do certainly think there are better ways to spend resources than making such optional setting-inconsistent attire).
It's the same strawman as the Boobplate thread. When people ar asking for options, they mean for the player character, and at most the PC and the party. Nobody has ever asked for npcs to wear sexualised attire. If people aren't going to use those armors in their own games anyway then aesthetic consistency wouldn't even be a problem. So the argument boils down to "But i'd still know they're there and it bothers me!" Or does aesthetic consistency in OTHER player's games actually bother you?
I don't understand why people can't just be honest and say they don't want the option because they don't like it. It has nothing to do with "realism" or "practicality" or "aesthetic cohesiveness." It's a matter of taste. I myself don't like sexualised characters either, but I don't see any harm in giving the option to those that do want that. If they don't, fine. If they do, that's great too.
I don't understand why people can't just be honest and say they don't want the option because they don't like it. It has nothing to do with "realism" or "practicality" or "aesthetic cohesiveness." It's a matter of taste. I myself don't like sexualised characters either, but I don't see any harm in giving the option to those that do want that. If they don't, fine. If they do, that's great too.
I don't like it because it isn't practical or realistic.
I don't like it because it isn't practical or realistic.
I'm not going to debunk the realism argument again, but suffice to say it has more holes than a wall of Swiss cheese put before a firing squad.
I'm not going to debunk the realism argument again, but suffice to say it has more holes than a wall of Swiss cheese put before a firing squad
Except it doesn't.
Wearing a catsuit into combat makes absolutely zero sense. It's just there for Rule of Cool and/or sexualization. It was part of the turn towards comic book aesthetics that the series took in the second chapter, which IMO was a turn for the worse.
Google The Hawkeye Initiative. That's what I'm talking about.
Even if people choose to ignore arguements of people that doesn't mean they don't still stand. It has pretty clearly explained by many users why they think these options aren't practical or go with cohesiviness of game. And also why some don't want options even if they don't have to choose them.
Most of discussion in this thread has been about squadmates outfits that don't suit to combat and aren't optional (ME2 mostly).
And some other non-optional choices like Miranda's butt-shots, Jack's nipples and EDI's cameltoe that don't serve much purpose in the game and are waste of resources.
Except it doesn't.
Wearing a catsuit into combat makes absolutely zero sense. It's just there for Rule of Cool and/or sexualization. It was part of the turn towards comic book aesthetics that the series took in the second chapter, which IMO was a turn for the worse.
I've come across it. Clever, but fallacious. What is typically considered sexy varies between men and women, and yes, men wearing women's clothing and adopting traditionally feminine poses are generally considered ridiculous.
Those "women clothing" and poses are almost as ridiculous for female characters as well.
EDIT: I mean that is the point of Hawkeye initiative. That these poses and clothings are ridiculous and show them by make male character in these poses and sometimes clothing (often the clothing is male version of ridiculous clothing or Hawkeyes regular clothing). Because people think it's normal for female character to pose like that.
Except it doesn't.
Wearing a catsuit into combat makes absolutely zero sense. It's just there for Rule of Cool and/or sexualization. It was part of the turn towards comic book aesthetics that the series took in the second chapter, which IMO was a turn for the worse.
Yes it does. It is an even more ridiculous argument when we're talking about Sci Fi, set in a different universe, in the future than it was in a fantasy setting. The realism argument is as fallacious as it gets.
Those "women clothing" and poses are almost as ridiculous for female characters as well.
Subjective statement. If a sizable audience didn't like it wouldn't be as popular as it clearly is. And before we make assumptions about this audiences composition let's remember almost half of comic book readers are female and most aren't any more likely to complain about it than men.
Just because people like it doesn't make those poses any more anatomically correct.
Just because people like it doesn't make those poses any more anatomically correct.
I feel inclined to point out Miranda's more 007 than GI Joe and most of ME2's action takes place in urban hubs. Moreover, you don't know how protective her 'catsuit' is (it's the future, it's likely tougher than it looks) and whether armor fits her fighting style. The whole 'more armor = good' idea doesn't rest in solid ground.
If catsuits provided as much protection as heavy armor, no one would wear heavy armor. The Alliance would have all of its soldiers in catsuits instead. Its a fairly reasonable assumption that armor designs that look like armor, provide more protection than the catsuits...otherwise the lighter protection would have won out and rendered the other completely obsolete.
The biggest argument I've seen over the years in support of the whole catsuit-in-combat thing, is that kinetic barriers supposedly provide enough protection that armor may not be entirely needed. I think that argument fails for a couple reasons. The first is that by only rolling with kinetic barriers, you're still sacrificing an extra level of protection no matter how powerful those barriers are. The second is that according to the lore the barriers function by using mass effect fields to deflect away fast moving projectiles. The way kinetic barriers function should mean they should provide no protection against the concussive effects of being in close proximity to a grenade, mortar, tank, or artillery shell exploding. Additionally those sorts of explosives also throw out shrapnel from the explosive itself, and can kick up debris from the ground like rocks or pieces of timber....those fragments, often tumbling much slower than bullets (and definitely travelling slower than rounds fired by mass accelerators) can maim or kill. The way kinetic barriers are described may mean they are not very effective at deflecting the shower moving shrapnel. Gameplay, such as pistols greater effectiveness against barriers or hand-to-hand combat bypassing it...heavily implies it. At the very least kinetic barriers certainly won't protect against concussion.
In contrast one of the functions of body armor is to protect against the concussive effects of explosions or the shrapnel they throw or kick up. In fact that is the primary function of modern day body armor like kevlar helmets or flak vests.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
